We shall discuss the nature of political sociology, in particular the interrelationship between the state and civil society. Then, we shall explore a school of thought called behaviouralism, which prioritised micro level analysis of political actions by identifying and measuring discrete and individual facts. However, behaviouralists were unable to explain the nature of power that requires a macro level of analysis as well.

At its broadest level, political sociology is concerned with the relationship between politics and society. Its distinctiveness within the social sciences lies in its acknowledgement that political actors, including parties, pressure groups and social movements, operate within a wider social context. Political actors therefore inevitably shape and in turn are shaped by social structures such as gender, class, ethnicity and nationality. Such social structures ensure that political influence within society is unequal. Consequently, a key concept in political sociology is that of power.

Because the state is the most powerful political institution, which symbolises and enforces the boundaries between societies as well as reflecting divisions within its own territory, many social scientists have focused upon the state’s relationship with other sites of power within civil society. The definition of political sociology is the study of the interdependent power relationship between the state and civil society. Political sociology studies the relationships between polity, society and the state, focusing on studies of power, power structures and aspects of conventional and non-conventional politics. It explores the issues and perspectives on power distributions within and between societies, and the social and political conflicts that lead to changes in the allocation of power

This is distinct from political science - this studies the government and the state, highlighting administrative structures and political institutions and political parties and interest groups.

In addition, political sociology is distinct from political economy – this deals with the entire socio-economic system (the production, distribution and consumption of resources) as well as with politico-economic policies and theories guided by liberal, conservative and radical approaches.

Political sociology has theoretical and empirical dimensions, as well as moral relevance.

The state refers to a set of tightly connected governmental institutions, concerned with the administration of a geographically determined population, the authority of which is recognised by other states through international law.

Civil society refers to the multitude of voluntary associations of citizens such as businesses, media organisations, churches, mosques, professional bodies, political parties, pressure groups and trade unions. These associations enjoy various degrees of autonomy from the state. Civil society can act as counterpoints to the power of the state.

Behaviouralists sought to shift the focus of political sociology towards a micro level analysis, concerned with individual and group political behaviour within civil society, and away from theorising of macro problems, such as the distribution of power between elite groups within the state. Behaviouralists insisted that valid conclusions about political behaviour could only be made from the objective analysis of hard data such as statistics on how people voted in elections, as opposed to abstract speculation about the nature of the state.

Some behaviouralists even dispensed with the concept of the state altogether, and advocated the use of an alternative concept, the ‘political system’.

However, critics suggested that behaviouralists’ objective analysis of the facts masked a firm normative commitment to the development and growth of the capitalist nation-state. Behaviouralism stressed that liberal democracy was the highest possible form of political system, and consequently should be adopted by developing countries if they wished to emulate the success of the West.

For behaviouralists, the success of liberal political systems was due to the maintenance of a distinct civil society characterised by value consensus, a common citizenship and the wealth created by capitalists enterprises. If the concept of the state was to be retained, it served a functional role as a neutral, regulatory institution that helped to stabilise civil society.

Yet, the behaviouralists ignored to the critical development of the state after 1945. The state had become more significant, and its intervention into civil society was essential for growth and stability. By ignoring the state, many of the most important questions of political sociology remained unanswered by the behaviouralists due to the weakness of their tendency towards mindless empiricism.

By exploring the nature of power, some of the weaknesses of the objective analysis of behaviouralism can be identified. Lukes divides the concept of power into three dimensions:

• first dimension: this concerns the capacity of an individual or group to achieve a desired end, even if it is opposed by those with contrary interests. This is relatively easy to measure since it involves concrete outcomes that clearly favour one actor over another.
• second dimension: this assumes hierarchical relationships between different social groups. This entails controlling the content of the political agenda. In some respects, the effect of the control over the political agenda might be measured by exploring the levels of participation and alienation displayed by dominant and marginalised groups.
• third dimension: this involves not only the manipulation of the political agenda, but also entails persuading subordinate groups that this agenda is in their real interests. This form of power involves essentially thought control and the creation of a false consciousness amongst the powerless, who come to identify with and support what may in reality be the exact opposite of their true interests. Due to the covert and subtle methods used, this kind of power is difficult to measure.

Because of behaviouralism’s emphasis upon empirically testable phenomena, it has focused overwhelmingly upon the first dimension of power, thereby ignoring what are arguably the more important structural dimensions of power: agenda setting and thought manipulation.

Yet, Lukes himself conflates and combines an analysis of the distribution of power with a normative judgement about what the distribution of power should be. Moreover, it is difficult to see on what basis any political community could be constructed because power is a purely negative attribute in Lukes’s framework.

Through a reconsideration of power, social scientists have attempted to shift political sociology back from the micro to the macro level of analysis through a sustained focus upon the role of the state as the most effective ‘power container’.

A state-centred approach to political sociology implies that the state, more than any other institution, concentrates those resources of power that influence the conduct of citizens, shape the political agenda, and transform the context in which the activities of civil society take place. The state not only centralises military power, but also possesses considerable communicative and economic power. It is the state is most able to employ the most effective methods of power such as force, manipulation and, in particular, authority. Moreover, the state is the most important site of power, reflecting and reinforcing structures of power, such as class, gender and ethnicity.

However, we must be caution of state reductionism – reducing political analysis to the state. We argue that the most appropriate focus for political sociology is the state – civil society relationship. From this perspective, the state is seen as the primary site of power, and civil society s defined as encompassing those institutions and associations that are not clearly part of the state apparatus, and are themselves crucial alternative sites of power. The state and civil society coexist in a relationship that is both dynamic and inherently tense.